Author Topic: Fielder (Read 215220 times)

The Chief · « **Reply #5375:** January 25, 2012, 02:04:58 PM »

Offended? Pssh

"Due for regression" just feels like a cop-out to me, that's all. If you (generic) think he's going to be worse, just say it. Own it. Don't hide behind statistical models and BABIP or whatever it is they use to determine who's "due".

People used to ridicule sportsfan to death for saying player X was "due" to do this or that, and rightfully so. Not quite the same thing obviously, but you get my meaning I'm sure.

JCA-CrystalCity · « **Reply #5376:** January 25, 2012, 02:36:47 PM »

Chief - reversion works both ways (improvement and fall off), so it isn't "he's due to be worse." Getting back to expected results based on a guy's talent. It isn't a tough concept.

The Chief · « **Reply #5377:** January 25, 2012, 03:31:33 PM »

I didn't say it was, but that doesn't mean I buy into it. At what point does "regression" fail to be any more significant than standard deviations? Assuming that there's no specific cutoff, I have to regard the whole thing to be about as intangible/mythical as some regard lineup protection.

The Chief · « **Reply #5378:** January 25, 2012, 03:32:56 PM »

Also, what are you basing such projections on with a player like Morse, whose recent years and relatively distant past - with far fewer ABs - are so different?

JCA-CrystalCity · « **Reply #5379:** January 25, 2012, 03:33:18 PM »

I hope I don't use regression. That is too heavy duty stat analysis for me. I'll leave it to PatsNats28 and his NFL prediciton program.

The Chief · « **Reply #5380:** January 25, 2012, 03:36:24 PM »

Maybe his performance will fall off this year, maybe not, but I feel like all this regression talk is just a fad that people are jumping on without even knowing what it means. It reminds me of the people who have made up their minds about Lannan and are just waiting, year after year, for the bottom to fall out so they don't have to admit they or their favorite computer model just might be off.

JCA-CrystalCity · « **Reply #5381:** January 25, 2012, 03:38:10 PM »

Morse? His Oliver projections discussed here.

Quote

In less that a full season of playing time in 2011, Morse hit 31 home runs. While Hit Tracker indicates that a large number of those dingers squeaked over the fence, a third of those home runs were classified as “No Doubts.” The average distance and bat speed of Morse’s 2011 home runs in were well above league average. Morse’s plate discipline is far from ideal, and at his age — he’ll be 30 in March — it’s unlikely that his skill will change much. But excellent power can make up for lots of problems. Morse’s 2012 Oliver projection is .292/.349/.505 — with a .369 wOBA. Over roughly a full season, that is about 25 runs above average, and that number will play anywhere.

But where will he play? The former shortstop is — to say the least — not a middle infielder any more. He spent 2011 in left field and, after Adam LaRoche‘s injury, landed at first base. UZR wasn’t overly impressed with his fielding, but even the most fervent defender of advanced fielding metrics would strongly warn against taking too much from a partial-season’s sample. Even if Morse is a true-talent -10 fielder in left — or -5 at first base — his projected bat would still make him roughly a 2.5 win player in about 150 games. That’s above average. So, even if you think his defense is really poor, Morse still projects a tick above average, overall.

The Chief · « **Reply #5382:** January 25, 2012, 03:44:48 PM »

There's no point in us discussing hypotheyicals when we don't agree on a context in which to evaluate his past performance.

JCA-CrystalCity · « **Reply #5383:** January 25, 2012, 04:22:41 PM »

You asked where I got the numbers, I told you

Those happen to be good offensive numbers. Personally, I'm pretty bullish on Morse, but what do I know? All I got is a cross bow and a quiver of arrows. You have the trashcan and mystical powers.

By the way - all the sky is falling in & they'll have a horrible offense in 2012? That's not hypotheticals, too?

InsaneBoost · « **Reply #5384:** January 25, 2012, 04:29:22 PM »

Amanda Comak

Quote

With regard to Prince Fielder, #nats Rizzos says: "we were in negotiations until it didn't make sense to be in them anymore."

Rizzo said the #nats had parameters they were comfortable with and when the negotiations went above them they were comfortable walking away.

InsaneBoost · « **Reply #5385:** January 25, 2012, 04:33:04 PM »

Comak

Quote

Rizzo also said that those parameters were not exceeded until very close to when Fielder signed with the #tigers. #nats

wpa2629 · « **Reply #5386:** January 25, 2012, 04:33:42 PM »

Adam Kilgore @AdamKilgoreWP
Mike Rizzo says "we were players" for Fielder and "we loved the player." The Nats had set parameters. In talks "until the end."

Adam Kilgore @AdamKilgoreWP
Rizzo confirmed Nats met with Fielder once, only once. Was open in discussing the process, but declined to say if they made a formal offer.

InsaneBoost · « **Reply #5387:** January 25, 2012, 04:34:47 PM »

So BallHock might not have been lying OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Chief · « **Reply #5388:** January 25, 2012, 04:35:35 PM »

Quote from: JCA-CrystalCity on January 25, 2012, 04:22:41 PM

You asked where I got the numbers, I told you Those happen to be good offensive numbers. Personally, I'm pretty bullish on Morse, but what do I know? All I got is a cross bow and a quiver of arrows. You have the trashcan and mystical powers.

By the way - all the sky is falling in & they'll have a horrible offense in 2012? That's not hypotheticals, too?

I wasn't really directing that at your post, just general case. I'm not even sure how to read that projection you quoted. It starts out sounding positive but then it sounds like they're saying he's barely above average?

UMDNats · « **Reply #5389:** January 25, 2012, 04:52:28 PM »

Did that jerk who guaranteed that we would be getting him (mlbinsidenews or whatever) say anything? It's hilarious how wrong he was after he was so sure it was happening.

DPMOmaha · « **Reply #5390:** January 25, 2012, 04:56:05 PM »

Quote from: UMDNats on January 25, 2012, 04:52:28 PM

Did that jerk who guaranteed that we would be getting him (mlbinsidenews or whatever) say anything? It's hilarious how wrong he was after he was so sure it was happening.

He said something along the lines of "Oh well. Nats FO is pissed."

UMDNats · « **Reply #5391:** January 25, 2012, 04:58:11 PM »

Quote from: DPMOmaha on January 25, 2012, 04:56:05 PM

He said something along the lines of "Oh well. Nats FO is pissed."

Typical online "insider."

PebbleBall · « **Reply #5392:** January 25, 2012, 05:01:46 PM »

Quote from: DPMOmaha on January 25, 2012, 04:56:05 PM

He said something along the lines of "Oh well. Nats FO is pissed."

He then deleted his account, as he said he would do if he was wrong about Prince. So hey, give him that.

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #5393:** January 25, 2012, 05:04:21 PM »

Quote from: PebbleBall on January 25, 2012, 05:01:46 PM

He then deleted his account, as he said he would do if he was wrong about Prince. So hey, give him that.

He probably had a few to delete, hopefully he had an account in a tigers forum he could keep

Mr Clean · « **Reply #5394:** January 25, 2012, 07:25:05 PM »

As the National League keeps losing sluggers to the AL they need to consider: Getting rid of the DH or more likely adopting the DH for their league as well.

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #5395:** January 25, 2012, 07:27:49 PM »

Quote from: Mr Clean on January 25, 2012, 07:25:05 PM

As the National League keeps losing sluggers to the AL they need to consider: Getting rid of the DH or more likely adopting the DH for their league as well.

The mets and dodgers are in financial disarray, otherwise I don't think the bleed of slugged would be so pronounced

spidernat · « **Reply #5396:** January 25, 2012, 08:25:02 PM »

Quote from: wpa2629 on January 25, 2012, 04:33:42 PM

Adam Kilgore @AdamKilgoreWP
Mike Rizzo says "we were players" for Fielder and "we loved the player." The Nats had set parameters. In talks "until the end."

Adam Kilgore @AdamKilgoreWP
Rizzo confirmed Nats met with Fielder once, only once. Was open in discussing the process, but declined to say if they made a formal offer.

same old bullcrap

zimm_da_kid · « **Reply #5397:** January 25, 2012, 08:47:50 PM »

from mlbtr

Quote

The Nats were never close to winning the Fielder bidding, tweets Buster Olney of ESPN.com. The club only got as far as discussing parameters of a deal, never specifics

tomterp · « **Reply #5398:** January 25, 2012, 08:57:56 PM »

Quote from: The Chief on January 25, 2012, 03:31:33 PM

I have to regard the whole thing to be about as intangible/mythical as lineup protection.

Sanity!